Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd v Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd

Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd v Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd

The Agreement is a construction contract within the Act; clause 9 is a pay-when-paid provision unenforceable under s 9 so the plaintiff remains liable for progress payments and the Act applies; a subsequent payment claim that incorporates unpaid items from earlier claims is not invalid as a repeat claim unless the earlier claim was adjudicated and dismissed on the merits; deficiencies in particulars under reg 5(2)(c) are not necessarily fatal; therefore the application to set aside the adjudication determination is dismissed.

Citation
[2013] SGHCR 16
Parties
Plaintiff: Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd; Defendant: Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd
Court
High Court Registrar
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
5 June 2013
Case Number
Originating Summons No 201 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons No 201 of 2013 (setting Aside Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act) / Judgment (application to Set Aside Adjudication Determination)
Outcome
Application to set aside adjudication determination dated 28 December 2012 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Security of Payment, Repeat Payment Claims, Validity of Payment Claim, Setting Aside Adjudication, Contract Interpretation, Pay When Paid Clause
Source Language
English
Construction Law Contract Law Adjudication Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Security of Payment Repeat Payment Claims Validity of Payment Claim +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Associate Dynamic Builder Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

Tactic Foundation Pte Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons No 201 of 2013 (setting Aside Adjudication Determination Under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act) / Judgment (application to Set Aside Adjudication Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Agreement is a construction contract within the Act and whether the plaintiff is a respondent liable to make progress payments
  2. 2 Whether clause 9 is an unenforceable pay-when-paid provision
  3. 3 Whether the Payment Claim is an impermissible repeat claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Agreement is a construction contract within the Act; clause 9 is a pay-when-paid provision unenforceable under s 9 so the plaintiff remains liable for progress payments and the Act applies; a subsequent payment claim that incorporates unpaid items from earlier claims is not invalid as a repeat claim unless the earlier claim was adjudicated and dismissed on the merits; deficiencies in particulars under reg 5(2)(c) are not necessarily fatal; therefore the application to set aside the adjudication determination is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside adjudication determination dated 28 December 2012 dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to set aside adjudication determination dated 28 December 2012 dismissed.